aa5874

If it is assumed the author of Acts was a 2nd century writer then he would have or should have gotten his information about from earlier sources.

Josephus, a 1st century writer, mentioned many of the names and places in Acts of the Apostles.

stephan huller

I think all of this misses the point. Roger is interested in one tradition which counts on Acts to develop its historical framework for Christianity. If you follow his blog he doesn't pretend to have an academic interest in other 'varieties' of Christianity. For someone like myself who has a lifelong interest in the Marcionites (Toto too apparently as noted at another thread ><) getting around Acts in order to piece together the parallel historical paradigm is de rigueur as well as the Marcionites rejected the claims of Acts as spurious.

All that matters is that we know where everyone is 'coming from' here. If I see someone with a red 'A' beside their avatar you can pretty much surmise that they are Roger in reverse.

IMO the question of whether Acts is historically reliable should be separated from whether Christianity is 'disproved' as such by refuting Acts. The Marcionites (and the Alexandrian tradition for that matter although I think the two traditions are undoubtedly related) show that one can have Christianity without necessarily relying on the authority of Acts (the Alexandrian tradition at its core is unquestionably unrelated to the history of Acts).

To this end I say that Acts is a secondary text in the same way as Luke admits to being secondary in its opening proclamation. According to my understanding Acts is reacting to the historical framework alluded to in the Letter to Theodore (as indeed ALL of the early Catholic tradition is especially Irenaeus) which ultimately is Marcionite when Marcionitism is properly understood. Christianity - no less than the original gospel - is an Alexandrian phenomenon which effectively became 'stolen' as Clement notes in to Theodore by Roman (Carpocratian) agents. People that engage in theft are generally unreliable people as such I find it hardly surprising that the Acts narrative seems two dimensional, implausible and polemical.

In short, I follow the Marcionite 'tip off' and look for reasons to justify their suspicions. I do this not to 'disprove' Christianity but rather to find the truth buried beneath this deliberate falsification.

PhilosopherJay

Hi bacht,

Thanks, this is very helpful. Is there a single reference here that has good historical backing? In most cases when we look up name "A," we are told that he is also mentioned in text "B," but when we look up text "B" we find that text "B" must be true because it matches name "A" found in "Acts." Yet it is just as easy to assume that text "B" mentions "A" because Chrisitans interpolated it into text "B" because it was mentioned in Acts.

Another cute trick of proving that Luke was right, is to take a half worn inscription with a few visible letters and to turn it into an inscription that includes the names mentioned in Acts. Since thousands of such inscriptions have been found, it is quite easy to prove any name and title you want by simply filling in the blanks. For example, if an "Li" is visible, you can turn it into Judas the Galilean or Cornelius the centurian or or Gallio or Felix the governor or Publius of Malta. If the inscription is in slightly worse condition and you cannot tell if the first letter is an L or an P, so much the better. You can change it into Crispus the ruler of the synogogue or Simon the Samarian or Agrippa.

Through these lovely tricks, it can be proved that Luke got everything right.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Steven Carr

Just how accurate is Acts claim that the Romans were '... at a loss how to investigate such matters'?

If Paul had been a follower of a crucified criminal, how could the Romans have been at a loss?

If somebody claimed to be a a follower of Osama bin Laden, would American officials be at a loss how to investigate such a claim?

The more accurate Acts gets in terms of geography and history, the more Jesus disappears.

I've even seen Christian apologists get around the silence in Paul by pointing to the fact that Acts has very little historical information about Jesus.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles, as the name implies, is about the post-ascension events of the apostles of Jesus and in the very 1st chapter Jesus was witnessed performing a non-historical act, ascending through the clouds.

Reppert perhaps can argue that the ascension of Jesus, seen by "witnesses", going through the cloud appears so "historical" that it is impossible that the author made it up.

Roger Pearse

I respect much of what Steve Mason is doing, and of course he is a real Josephus scholar. As I understand it, he is putting the theory forward to see what comes out. This is of course a perfectly legitimate exercise, if somewhat perverse, to force a re-evaluation of the data. But it remains a fringe idea.

All the others who have jumped on the idea with excitement all tend to betray their motivation pretty clearly.

If people want to continue claiming this curious idea is somehow mainstream, they need to start producing quotes frm Josephus scholars saying that it is. I think these will be somewhat thin on the ground. But of course I could be mistaken. Maybe Josephus scholarship is engaged in revisionism! But somehow I think not. Josephus writes in a very different world to Luke.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Deus Ex

Timothy McGrew claims that these details have been verified by the archaeological findings of William Ramsay. My argument is that the author of Acts may have had access to a possible travel diary of Paul's that is now no longer extant. His argument is that the historical precision combined with the 'we-passages' in Acts is good evidence that "Luke" was an actual companion of Paul's.

Basically, McGrew and Reppert are pushing for an extremely early composition date--not only for Act but also the gospels themselves--for the purpose of showing that all the miracles found in the bible can be verified by "eyewitnesses" who then went on to be martyred for what they "saw" and believed in. Ergo, Christians can be justified in believing the bible since the original disciples were willing to be murdered for what they saw.

Tim McGrew's additional evidence on Acts:

bacht

Luke gets around some of this by making Paul a full Roman citizen. I don't believe this is mentioned in his letters. Paul's appeal to Caesar is a convenient plot device to explain the trip to Rome (and provide a nifty sea voyage for entertainment)

bacht

Yes, it's a fun game. I would guess some of these names are 2nd C people, possibly friends of Luke or heretics in disguise (eg. Simon = Marcion?)

bacht

The travel diary might have existed, but I don't see how that proves an early date for Acts itself. Paul's missions can also be stitched together from the epistles, though Luke was also trying to harmonize the apostles in Judea with the gentile outreach.